Right to roam
- Thread starter BenBhoy
- Start date
Mountain Bug
Well-Known Member
The days of telling someone where they can walk may sadly be long gone for you fellas, but folk and their ilk do actually own the countryside. It is not a giant dog park or public recreation area. Are you okay with strangers roaming your garden or perhaps enjoying a little camping in your yard without permission? This right to roam argument seems to make no distinction between woodland and your back garden, and boils down to "You have land and I don't and thats just not fair, so I should get to use it while doing nothing to earn the privilege"
Scott
I'd love to live in a world where people all respect the countryside and there aren't so many people that wildlife is impacted. However, what I dream of and what I think is necessary to protect the countryside are very sadly two very different things. Seeing how so many round here treat the countryside, plus population densities, I just can't get behind 'right to roam'. I'm guessing there's more of 'the old ways' near you. We've got people down here wandering, with their dogs, onto military live ranges when the red flags are up. Even in Austria where all formerly crown land is, to my understanding, state owned and accessible to all, they have areas people are asked not to go in order to respect wildlife or hunting and many just ignore this- and that's a culture where hunting is prized/respected.
Further, at some point someone has to take responsibility for managing the land. I have very limited faith in government to do that well, which leaves other organisations (single or plural) which are a real mixed bag, or individuals, also a mixed bag but I personally have more faith in individuals than organisations. Plus if every citizen should have access then every citizen should be liable for the costs. Unsurprisingly I'm also not in favour of higher taxes!
i was about to post the same. gardens are not allowed unless is it a massive garden
There certainly is a distinction. It's clearly defined in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (The Layman's guide to the Right of Responsible Access.
Access rights do not extend to houses and gardens. In some cases, the extent of a garden might be difficult to judge. Things to look out for in judging whether an area of land close to a house is a garden or not include:
- A clear boundary, such as a wall, fence, hedge or constructed bank, or a natural boundary like a river, stream or loch
- A lawn or other area of short mown grass
- Flowerbeds and tended shrubs, paving and water features
- Sheds, glasshouses and summer houses
- Vegetable and fruit gardens (often walled but sometimes well away from houses).
Use a path or track, if there is one, when you are close to a house and keep a sensible distance away if there is no path or track. Take care not to act in ways that might annoy or alarm people living there. At night take extra care by following paths and tracks and if there are no paths or tracks keep well away from buildings.
Practical guide for all
Brighty3006
Well-Known Member
I have a half acre garden with a footpath at the bottom and fields beyond. I regularly walk my dogs on the footpath and regularly see people wander straight across these fields even when they have been drilled or a standing crop. They have no idea of the countryside and never will so giving them any sort of rights to roam is in my opinion bloody ridiculous..
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, a substantial minority of the public pay little heed to the wording of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code - just look at the issues faced constantly by some stalking estates and farms, despite the fine words in the Code about having respect for legitimate countryside activities. In any case, there is no enforcement, even when the Code is breached in the most blatant and bloody-minded manner.
True, in remote areas of the Highlands, public access to private land may have relatively little adverse impact. But in more densely populated areas, or in rural tourism hotspots, the problems are very real. Some Scottish national park authorities are now attempting to mitigate the problems with byelaws. Broader changes to the legislation have been mooted, even by nationalist politicians whose local constituents have been been outraged by some of the misbehaviour local communities have suffered.
South of the border, the imposition of a Scottish-style land "nationalisation" would cause these same problems, but on a much, much wider scale - not least for stalking, wildlife and fieldsports. Here there is a vastly higher population density and the sort of problems already experienced in certain parts of Scotland would be replicated right across whole swathes of England and Wales.
And for what genuine need? South of the border, contrary to the myths propagated by an unholy combination of Marxist campaigners and animal rights activists, there is already ample and appropriate public access to private land - including a vast and growing network of linear public rights of way (much of which has been gained by persistent trespass, which is rewarded by the legal fiction of presumed dedication) as well as statutory access to moors and commons in the uplands, permissive access schemes... and then, of course, there is the huge public forestry estate - all of which is open to the public.
Greed and envy should be no excuse for usurping private property rights.
True, in remote areas of the Highlands, public access to private land may have relatively little adverse impact. But in more densely populated areas, or in rural tourism hotspots, the problems are very real. Some Scottish national park authorities are now attempting to mitigate the problems with byelaws. Broader changes to the legislation have been mooted, even by nationalist politicians whose local constituents have been been outraged by some of the misbehaviour local communities have suffered.
South of the border, the imposition of a Scottish-style land "nationalisation" would cause these same problems, but on a much, much wider scale - not least for stalking, wildlife and fieldsports. Here there is a vastly higher population density and the sort of problems already experienced in certain parts of Scotland would be replicated right across whole swathes of England and Wales.
And for what genuine need? South of the border, contrary to the myths propagated by an unholy combination of Marxist campaigners and animal rights activists, there is already ample and appropriate public access to private land - including a vast and growing network of linear public rights of way (much of which has been gained by persistent trespass, which is rewarded by the legal fiction of presumed dedication) as well as statutory access to moors and commons in the uplands, permissive access schemes... and then, of course, there is the huge public forestry estate - all of which is open to the public.
Greed and envy should be no excuse for usurping private property rights.
Last edited:
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
So you’ve never read it then ? I suggest you do before making comment.
Basically, you’re completely wrong.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Why ?
They are already ignoring responsible access, so why then deny it to people who will act responsibly? Makes no sense.
Another one who hasn’t read the legislation. Right to roam does not give the right to walk through standing crop, so you’ve got completely the wrong end of the stick there
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
See my answer above. Greed is actually what’s stopping folk having access to.
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
I have never met a right to roamer who dedicated their own private land to the public.
Greeds got fuk all to do with it ....
Can't you understand the simple reason of people seeing their stuff being broken or litter and crap dumped over it ....
Its really that simple....folk in know or myself wouldn't have any issues if folk simply respected the rules / access code
Paul
Can't you understand the simple reason of people seeing their stuff being broken or litter and crap dumped over it ....
Its really that simple....folk in know or myself wouldn't have any issues if folk simply respected the rules / access code
Paul
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
I’ve no idea why that’s relevant
Can’t you understand that this happens now and has nothing to do with public access?
As I said, so deny everyone access because some can’t behave ? Sounds like the “ handgun ban.”
This is basically the top and bottom of everything.
Respect and good manners.
I've got my own piece of woodland , and I've also got access to thousands of acres of shooting , that I've had for years . It all comes down to respect and good manners . Sadly , both are dissapearing rapidly from society .
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I am very much in favour of the Right to Roam legislation that we have in Scotland. It includes offences that if you interfere with, damage, leave litter etc you may be prosecuted.
Unfortunately there is little in the way of enforcement and a few bellends ruin it for everybody else.
Unfortunately there is little in the way of enforcement and a few bellends ruin it for everybody else.
Id agree that enforcement is the issue. Near me in Scotland a sheep was attacked and died of its injuries. Inspite of the dog being caught, numerous witnesses and iphone evidence, the Procurator fiscal wouldn't prosecute.
The farmer now hides his sheep away further up the hill to lamb rather than leave them lower down near the villages where people walk their dogs. This is inspite of these being the ideal sheltered nursing fields. The worst thing that can happen to a field of heavily pregnant ewes is that they see a dog and decide to relocate with lambs hanging out of their bums. Dogs can even affect fertility in the autumn.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Quite, as I said the few bugger things up for the many.
We used to regularly wild camp up in the Highlands. Never had an issue and we would leave only foot prints.
Now you regularly find brand new pop up tents, sleeping bags and empties all just left. Kids have carried them in and can’t be bothered to carry them out.
In most other places the authorities would jump on you. Forest and countryside rangers have the powers of arrest. Chatting with one of the rangers a few weeks ago. They make reports to the police. Police do nothing.
Similar threads
